For my part, I can with all self-confidence say, that I really love or
like POV-Ray very much. I never repended to have started using it in the
very early 1990s. And over all that time, the developers did a great
job. Well, ALMOST all developers, I should say, he he he!

Yes, rendering takes time, but I am willing to pay that price. I like
quality.

The only feature I am missing, is the ability to export POV-Ray scenes
into a few other 3D file formats. If POV-Ray could be made exporting
into the quite similar OpenSCAD file format, we could take over from there.

But I know, as long as I have my hands and fingers, I will continue to
use POV-Ray.





On 27.02.2016 17:48, LanuHum wrote:
> "Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> 
>> I'm sure that over the long history of POV-Ray's development, that there must be
>> an astronomical amount of work that was done to bring POV-Ray to the stage where
>> it is at.   I'm sure there have been many, many hours of long, hard, tedious
>> hours of drudge work and thousands of largely unseen, thankless jobs.
>> I'm always happy that it has continued on, and is always improving.
>>
> 
> I don't doubt that there is a lot of work.
> I want to have fast and beautiful hair
> http://sago.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blondhair.jpg
> 
>>> Your mistake - isn't present a fast render of curves.
>>> Sphere_sweep - bad option.
>>
>> Yeah, sphere sweep kinda sucks, I'll admit.
>> I presently use a sphere for the first point, and then extend a cylinder out to
>> every subsequent point after that.   Seems to do the job smoothly enough and I
>> don't get the holes / choppiness of too few spheres, or the very slow results
>> from using 100,000 spheres to make a "line".
>>
> 
> I try to use metaballs (blobs).
> But it doesn't help at quantity of curves equal 150 000 and more...
> 
>>> Povray - is very good. But, you are stubborn. :)
>>
>> True, but that's one of their greatest strengths!  ;)
>>
> 
> I long write the exporter. I haven't found support. It is interesting to me: why
> users don't love Povray?
> It isn't necessary to deceive himself! Even here only a few admirers.
> I can analyse the number of visitors.
> I've been told: "There are many renderer better, than Povray"
> Users find other renderer. Why? Why doesn't interest developers
> prestige?
> The render of hair goes to Blender Internal Render 10 - 30 seconds. I don't
> think that octree or kd-tree for this purpose use
> They use cunning, but result beautiful.
> 
> I am a bad programmer. I don't want to listen to users. I want to do what I want
> to do. I have no users.
> 
> I can't explain to users: why Povray renders hair 2 - 7 hours? Who has this time
> for animation?
> We receive beautiful hair in seven hours of a render? No...
> http://sago.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/blondhair.jpg
> https://cdn.tutsplus.com/cg/uploads/legacy/079_Blender_Hair/preview.jpg
> http://www.blendernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/luxrender-hair.jpg
> 
> 
>>> Why you aren't interested time of a render
>>>  scenes, but only quality???
>>
>> I'm sure speed is always a desire - but not at the expense of quality.   PLENTY
>> of others produce products where speed is top priority.   Once computing power
>> catches up, then there will be quality AND speed.
>>
> 
> There have to be steps. The free software has no fast renderer for animation. In
> animation the speed, than quality is more important. At fast change of shots you
> won't manage to consider each shot.
> Povray has animation. What for? to render one picture for an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message